U.S. ends search for WMD in Iraq having found none

02/05/2005 04:47:37 PM · #226

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

Gee, RonB, I guess it's not just the "liberals" who believe Bush lied but some rather well-known folks from your side of the fence, too. Read it and weep.

I read it. I didn't weep. I didn't have to. There was not a single statement in that article that said that anyone believe Bush lied. I did find a lie in the article, though. It was made by the author. It makes a statement about

"Stephen Hadley, who "forgot" to remove the false claims about Iraq's yellowcake purchases from the president's 2003 State of the Union speech".

In fact, Bush did NOT make "false claims about Iraq's yellowcake purchases" in his 2003 State of the Union speech. For the benefit of those who seek the truth, rather than the lies of the left, what Bush actually said was

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.".

That statement was not a lie ( a statement known to be false when it was made ). It was a true statement. In fact, the British substantiated his remark. The BBC in this article says:

"The British Government has stood by its assertion, saying the forged documents were not the only evidence used to reach its conclusion that Saddam Hussein tried to buy uranium from Africa.

On Tuesday Mr Blair defended the assessment, telling a committee of MPs that it was not a "fantasy" and that the intelligence services themselves stood by the allegation.

"The evidence that we had that the Iraqi Government had gone back to try to purchase further amounts of uranium from Niger did not come from these so-called 'forged' documents, they came from separate intelligence," Mr Blair said."

Read it and weep, indeed.

02/05/2005 05:47:38 PM · #227

RonB,

You're a partisan misleader of the worst kind. You're intentionally misrepresenting, rather, lying, about what the July 9, 2003, BBC article actually says. Here are some quotes from the article you cite above regarding the forged Niger documents that Bush referred to in his 2003 union speech, just before his war of choice on Iraq:

"The CIA warned the US Government that claims about Iraq's nuclear ambitions were not true months before President Bush used them to make his case for war, the BBC has learned."

[...]

"On Tuesday, the White House for the first time officially acknowledged that the Niger claim was wrong and suggested it should not have been used in the president's State of the Union speech in January."

"But the CIA official has said that a former US diplomat had already established the claim was false in March 2002 - and that the information had been passed on to government departments, including the White House, well before Mr Bush mentioned it in the speech."

[...]

"But a former US diplomat, Ambassador Joseph Wilson, went on the record at the weekend to say that he had travelled to Africa to investigate the uranium claims and found no evidence to support them."

"Now the CIA official has told the BBC that Mr Wilson's findings had been passed onto the White House as early as March 2002."

"That means that the administration would have known nearly a year before the State of the Union address that the information was likely false."

.......................................

Moreover, as for what Bush actually said in his 2003 state of the union speech, it's called "plausible deniability" -- You know, diplomatic speak for COVER YOUR ASS by not "technically" lying. That's why Bush said:

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

Rather than "We, in cooperation with Britain -- our ally," so that technically partisan-hacks could defend Bush & Co. by saying, "Well, technically, he didn't lie. Bush simply said that Britain had learned." Once again, RonB, you're only fooling yourself and disclosing your lack of intellectual integrity.

02/05/2005 06:18:46 PM · #228

Ya know what the extreme right wing neo-con's call this statement?

"The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

They call it an "honest mistake"

BrennanOB

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

02/06/2005 06:56:38 AM · #229

My favorite irony of this affair is that CBS and Dan Rather used a forged document in their overzelous desire to get a story that cast doubt on our President's glorious service in the Air National Guard while serving in Georgia\Harvard Buisness School. Rather and 3 top staff were let go and CBS admitted their error.

The Bush team used a faked document (the Nigerian minister whose signature was forged was several years out of office at the date of the letter; this was very badly faked, a Google search would have disproven it) in their over zelous desire to get a chance to send American troops to a distant oil rich land to kill and be killed. Tennant, Rice and the people responsible for vetting such information have been promoted or given medals, and the White House has steadfastly resisted the idea that there has been any duplicity or fault.

Glad to know that our government operates on such a lofty standard.

Message edited by author 2005-02-06 06:57:56.

Olyuzi

Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7

Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH

02/06/2005 12:26:21 PM · #230

The Geneva Conventions do apply to all combatants in an international armed conflict, even terrorists, and the fact that the US has taken military action in countries they believe to be associated with terrorists, rather than more traditional legal means, indicates that the Geneva Conventions apply to those POws. In cases where POW status is in doubt a competent tribunal needs to determine their status, not military tribunals, as has been found by a US court.

As for Abu Ghraib, the Red Cross has found that over 90%...90% of the detainees there were innocent citizens not involved in the conflict at all. Same could be said of the detainees in Guantanamo Bay where innocent people have been taken off the streets because of their religious affiliation, not having anything to do with terrorism and kept there in horrid conditions, and tortured and in some cases killed. The detainees there (some imprisoned for over 3 years) are not charged with any crimes, are not given legal council and not allowed contact with family. Instead, the US has been forced to release some of the detainees, such has recently happened with four from Great Britain, and to my knowledge, there hasn't yet been one case where the US gov't proved anyone was associated with terrorism. They are trying to keep Guantanamo as secret as they can.

Do you believe that these prisoners should not be accorded the protections of the Geneva Conventions? Do you believe that there is any good reason for torture to be used? Do you believe that anything good can come out of such abusive treatment? Do you support the president's decision to replace John Ashcroft with Alberto Gonzales for attorney general?

Originally posted by RonB:

Oh, and I can't go without making one more observation - the Geneva Conventions specifically state that POWs fall under the Geneva Conventions only if

# they are being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
# they have a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
# they carry arms openly;
# they conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

Most of the detainees in Abu Ghraib did NOT meet those criteria - hence they do not fall under the protections afforded by the Geneva Conventions, UNTIL an independent judge determines their status.
Please note that I am NOT making excuses for the abusive treatment they received, only pointing out the fallacy that they are automatically entitled to treatment in compliance with the Geneva Conventions.

SO, since you stated as fact, not opinion, that the US refuses to uphold the Geneva Conventions, could you please offer some evidence to support that statement?

Dim7

Canon EOS R

Canon EF 24-70 2.8L II

02/06/2005 12:38:09 PM · #231

Originally posted by BrennanOB:

You really think that power and influence had nothing to do with GB2 not going to Viet Nam? It�s all about weapons of mass pollution!

Dim7

Canon EOS R

Canon EF 24-70 2.8L II

02/06/2005 12:39:32 PM · #232

Originally posted by NovaTiger:

Dude, he's a national politician. It's in the job description.

LOL

02/06/2005 04:42:04 PM · #233

This is so funny!!!

twisted words?

02/06/2005 11:29:04 PM · #234

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Technically, you are wrong on several points.
1) The Geneva Conventions do not apply to combatants at all
2) There are actually four Geneva Conventions, the first is related to treatment of battlefield casualties, the second is related to casualties at sea, the third ( the one we are talking about ) is related to Prisoners of War, and the fourth is ralated to civilians during wartime
3) the word 'terrorist' is never mentioned in the third Geneva Conventions

The only point you make that is even close to being correct is that when in doubt a determination should be made by a tribunal, a point which I also made. The wording in the Conventions, in fact, is as follows:

"Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal."

Note that the Conventions do not specify the the "competent tribunal" cannot be a military tribunal as you have stated. The federal court ruling you refer to is not the final word since The US Supreme Court has only just accepted the case for review.

Can you post an excerpt from the third Geneva Conventions ( or any other, for that matter ) that would support your contention that Geneva Conventions apply to combatants in general, and terrorists specifically?

Message edited by author 2005-02-07 12:51:08.

02/11/2005 09:42:06 AM · #235

Originally posted by bdobe:

RonB,

You're a partisan misleader of the worst kind. You're intentionally misrepresenting, rather, lying, about what the July 9, 2003, BBC article actually says...
...Once again, RonB, you're only fooling yourself and disclosing your lack of intellectual integrity.

Speaking of being a partisan hack, perhaps it would be good of you to come clean and disclose that you run a partisan website of your own and that you often post the same political propaganda there that you do here in dpchallenge. Not to mention the fact that you "lift" commentary from posters in the dpchallenge rant threads to post on your website, but do so without giving those whose comments you lift either notice that you do so or an opportunity to rebut your comments about their statements in your website. Talk about a lack of intellectual integrity.

If anyone thinks that I'm making this up, just visit THIS LINK. It should work until Mr. Renderos, aka bdobe, removes it. And if he does, you should still be able to find the Google cached page by doing a Google search on "dpchallenge.com repost" ( be sure to include the quotes )and click on the cached link.

Message edited by author 2005-02-11 09:43:25.

02/12/2005 01:09:53 PM · #236

FWIW, It looks like Rumsfeld was welcomed to Germany, after all.

According to an AP new article

"The speech at the gathering of leading security officials was a late addition to Rumsfeld's agenda and came after German prosecutors decided not to investigate Rumsfeld on war crimes allegations involving torture of detainees at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq."

02/15/2005 09:16:55 PM · #237

looks like the courts are gonna make those reporters tell them who "in the administration" spilled the beans on Valerie Plame.

reporters must testify or go to jail

02/15/2005 10:03:13 PM · #238

Ha... I hadn't seen this post from our dear old friend RonB...

I make no bones about it, and I think it's perfectly clear that am a liberal... I don't pretend not to be anything else -- I've often said as much here at DPC, I am a Liberal! As for re-posting my DPC posts; they are my original thoughts, so, yes, I "collect" them in my irregularly updated blog, //www.voxmia.com.

In fact, I even credit you in the post you refer to below -- lucky you!

Anyone that's interested in re-reading what I sometimes post here at DPC is more than welcome to visit my blog, and read the post again -- but why would anyone want to!?

By the way, my not referring back to my blog (or providing a link to it before) has nothing to do -- as you strain so hard to suggest -- with lack of intellectual integrity or with some other nefarious motive. As you note, many of the entries in my blog are my recycled DPC posts, and the sites that I refer to on my blog are publicly available to anyone with access to the web.

You, on the other hand, RonB, exhibited such a lack of intellectual integrity... nah, of just plain decency and honesty, that I don't know how anyone can take your post seriously. Moreover, without you providing a direct link to the sources you cite, how can we be sure that you're not grossly distorting the original source as you did in your earlier post -- remember, the post where you omitted the following passages from this July 9, 2003, BBC article, which nulls your contention:

"The CIA warned the US Government that claims about Iraq's nuclear ambitions were not true months before President Bush used them to make his case for war, the BBC has learned."

[...]

"On Tuesday, the White House for the first time officially acknowledged that the Niger claim was wrong and suggested it should not have been used in the president's State of the Union speech in January."

"But the CIA official has said that a former US diplomat had already established the claim was false in March 2002 - and that the information had been passed on to government departments, including the White House, well before Mr Bush mentioned it in the speech."

[...]

"But a former US diplomat, Ambassador Joseph Wilson, went on the record at the weekend to say that he had travelled to Africa to investigate the uranium claims and found no evidence to support them."

"Now the CIA official has told the BBC that Mr Wilson's findings had been passed onto the White House as early as March 2002."

"That means that the administration would have known nearly a year before the State of the Union address that the information was likely false."

.......................................

By the way, thanks for bringing my blog to my attention... I've neglected it much too long, and should start posting again.

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by bdobe:
RonB,

You're a partisan misleader of the worst kind. You're intentionally misrepresenting, rather, lying, about what the July 9, 2003, BBC article actually says...
...Once again, RonB, you're only fooling yourself and disclosing your lack of intellectual integrity.

Speaking of being a partisan hack, perhaps it would be good of you to come clean and disclose that you run a partisan website of your own and that you often post the same political propaganda there that you do here in dpchallenge. Not to mention the fact that you "lift" commentary from posters in the dpchallenge rant threads to post on your website, but do so without giving those whose comments you lift either notice that you do so or an opportunity to rebut your comments about their statements in your website. Talk about a lack of intellectual integrity.

If anyone thinks that I'm making this up, just visit THIS LINK. It should work until Mr. Renderos, aka bdobe, removes it. And if he does, you should still be able to find the Google cached page by doing a Google search on "dpchallenge.com repost" ( be sure to include the quotes )and click on the cached link.

Message edited by author 2005-02-16 00:44:48.

02/15/2005 10:12:58 PM · #239

Originally posted by ericlimon:

looks like the courts are gonna make those reporters tell them who "in the administration" spilled the beans on Valerie Plame.

reporters must testify or go to jail

Curious, Eric. Do you agree with that decision or disagree with it? That is, do you feel that in this case the reporters should be compelled to disclose their sources of face comtempt charges or not?

Just in case you would like my opinion, in THIS situation ( that is, a crime MAY have been committed ) I agree with the court's decision.

02/15/2005 10:23:59 PM · #240

Again, thanks RonB...

I had completely forgotten about this post, from my blog:

//www.voxmia.com/archives/000004.html

02/16/2005 03:44:13 AM · #241

RonB,

Since you agree that the NYT and TIME reporters involved in the illegal disclosure of a CIA agent's identification (i.e., Valerie Plame) should cough-up how it was that her name was leaked to them; perhaps you'll also agree that James D. Guckert (a.k.a., "Jeff Gannon"), whom also appears to be involved in the Valerie Plame scandal, should also be investigated, and his real identity and ties to the Bush administration be disclosed.

For those that might not be up to speed on the "Jeff Gannon"/Male prostitute matter, here's a quick run down:

"Jeff Gannon," his real name is James D. Guckert, used a fake name and fake press credentials to "gain access" to White House press briefings for over a year and a half; during which time, "Jeff Gannon" was routinely called on by the White House Press Secretary -- and by Bush himself -- to "plant" news items. (Note: This must be placed in the larger context of what's being called "White House Payola" -- that is, the Bush administration's use of taxpayer money to pay-off journalists so that they give positive press coverage to this administration's policy initiatives.)

And here's more on "Jeff Gannon" from Editor and Publisher [02/10/2005] (emphasis added):

Despite the ruse, "Gannon" still managed to gain access to many White House briefings and was one of the few reporters allowed to ask President Bush a (very friendly) question at a press conference two weeks ago.

NPR reported Wednesday that when Gannon was turned down for Capitol Hill credentials -- a move first reported by E&P last week -- he had used the name James Guckert. He admitted to NPR that Gannon was not his real name, and left it at that.

This "begs further investigation," James Pinkerton, a media critic for Fox News, told the online magazine Salon.com. He recalled that in the six years he worked for Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush, the White House was "strict about who got in. It's inconceivable to me that the White House, especially after 9/11, gives credentials to people without doing a background check. ... If [Gannon] was walking around the White House with a pass that had a different name on it than his real name, that's pretty remarkable."

[...]

Also Wednesday, Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.) sent a letter to President Bush asking him to "address the matter" in light of "mounting evidence that your Administration has, on several occasions, paid members of the media to advocate in favor of Administration policies."

[...]

Gannon's original refusal to deny he used a fake name sparked investigations by a number of blogs, which probed his true identity. In addition, those sites posted allegations that Web sites such as hotmilitarystud.com, militaryescorts.com, and militaryescortsm4m.com, were registered to the same owner as Gannon's personal Web site (www.jeffgannon.com).

"The bloggers," Kurtz writes today, "also have linked to a since-withdrawn America Online photo of a man who appears to be Gannon, posing in his underwear, with a screen name bearing the initials 'JDG.'"

In her letter to President Bush, Rep. Slaughter charged that "it appears that 'Mr. Gannon's' presence in the White House press corps was merely as a tool of propaganda for your Administration."

[...]

Another intriguing issue is his involvement, along with the better-known Robert Novak, Judith Miller, and others, in the Valerie Plame/CIA episode. Gannon's name turned up on a list of reporters targeted for questioning by the federal prosecutor in the case. Froomkin of the Washington Post wrote last spring that "the reason Gannon is on the list is most likely an attempt to find out who gave him a secret memo that he mentioned in an interview he had with Plame's husband, former ambassador and administration critic Joseph Wilson."

The Talon News site today scrubbed its archives of many "Gannon" articles and removed his biography. It said it was already looking for a replacement for its star reporter.

.......................................

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by ericlimon:
looks like the courts are gonna make those reporters tell them who "in the administration" spilled the beans on Valerie Plame.

reporters must testify or go to jail

Curious, Eric. Do you agree with that decision or disagree with it? That is, do you feel that in this case the reporters should be compelled to disclose their sources of face comtempt charges or not?

Just in case you would like my opinion, in THIS situation ( that is, a crime MAY have been committed ) I agree with the court's decision.

Message edited by author 2005-02-16 03:55:20.

02/16/2005 08:35:21 AM · #242

Originally posted by bdobe:

Again, thanks RonB...

I had completely forgotten about this post, from my blog:

//www.voxmia.com/archives/000004.html

thats funny, thanks bdobe!

Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH

02/16/2005 10:12:00 AM · #243

Originally posted by bdobe:

It must be in the nature of liberals to lie. They just cannot seem to avoid it.

First, NO I don't agree that NYT and Time reporters were "involved in the illegal disclosure of a CIA agent's identification". To date, there has been NO determination that anything ILLEGAL occurred. It is an investigation into the POSSIBILITY that illegal acts were committed. To that end, yes they are "involved" but I would stop there without implying that their involvement was in something illegal. But then, I'm a conservative, not a liberal. I don't "have to" lie.

Second, it is not true that Gannon used a "fake name" and "fake credentials" to "gain access" to the White House press briefings. Those who authorized his press pass knew full well what his "real name" was, as did the Press Secretary. From an interview of Howard Kurtz by Wolf Blitzer:

"BLITZER: Is there any evidence that there's a connection, that the White House put him up to this to throw these kind of questions whether to Scott McClellan or to the president? Any evidence of wrongdoing, first of all, on the part of the White House?

"KURTZ: No evidence whatsoever. I talked to Scott McClellan about this today, the White House spokesman. He said, first of all, President Bush didn't know who Jeff Gannon was when he called on him at that news conference.

"But McClellan knows who he is. He calls on him at White House briefings from time to time. He says that there are a lot of people in the White House press room who have strong opinions and sometimes put them into their questions and it's not his job as the press secretary to be deciding who can get into the White House and who can't based on their political views."

Third, use of the word "leaked" is meant to imply that the revelation was made by intent. Again, no such determination has been made.

Fourth, "Jeff Gannon" a.k.a. James D. Guckert was not "routinely" called on by the White House Press Secretary. He was called on "from time to time" ( see above quote ) as is any reporter present at the briefings.

Fifth, it is ( obviously ) pure conjecture that he was called on to "plant" news items - from the same interview quoted above:

"BLITZER: I used to be a White House correspondent for many years, sat through numerous briefings. There are plenty of journalists that wear their politics on their sleeve, liberals, conservatives. What's wrong with journalists having these kind of views, being advocacy journalists, if you will?

"KURTZ: I personally don't think there's anything wrong with it, as long as they make clear what their views are, as Jeff Gannon clearly did.

"A lot of people are questioning, well, why does this guy have White House press credentials? Because he doesn't write for a newspaper or magazine. Everything he writes is simply online. But in the age of blogging, that's hardly unusual. And he doesn't have a permanent -- what's called a hard pass. He just gets cleared into the White House on a day-to-day basis, which is a privilege that is pretty much open to any journalist."

Now, all that being said - yes, I agree that further investigation into his involvement, if any, in the "Valarie Plame affair" is warranted.

Olyuzi

Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7

02/16/2005 12:27:12 PM · #244

From DemocracyNow.org:
"ElBaradei: No New Evidence of Nukes In Iran
The head of the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency has cast new doubts on the Bush administration's claim that Iran is building nuclear weapons. Mohamed ElBaradei of the International Atomic Energy Agency said there have been no discoveries in the last six months to substantiate claims that Iran is secretly working toward building a nuclear bomb. ElBaradei also praised France, Britain and Germany for negotiating with Iran that have led to the suspension of its nuclear activities."

Sound familiar?

Message edited by author 2005-02-16 12:31:35.

02/16/2005 01:04:59 PM · #245

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Not really. Should it? If so, why?

Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH

02/16/2005 01:28:32 PM · #246

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Yes, it definitely sounds familiar... too familiar. Mr. ElBaradei's comment seems eerily similar (to any reasonable person, that is) to various statements on the lack of WMD in Iraq before the war -- remember, Bush & Co. ignored and belittled the lack of WMD warnings as they went about selling their war of choice to us, the American public.

Olyuzi

Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7

02/16/2005 01:31:25 PM · #247

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Olyuzi:
The Geneva Conventions do apply to all combatants in an international armed conflict, even terrorists, and the fact that the US has taken military action in countries they believe to be associated with terrorists, rather than more traditional legal means, indicates that the Geneva Conventions apply to those POws. In cases where POW status is in doubt a competent tribunal needs to determine their status, not military tribunals, as has been found by a US court.

Technically, you are wrong on several points.
1) The Geneva Conventions do not apply to combatants at all
2) There are actually four Geneva Conventions, the first is related to treatment of battlefield casualties, the second is related to casualties at sea, the third ( the one we are talking about ) is related to Prisoners of War, and the fourth is ralated to civilians during wartime
3) the word 'terrorist' is never mentioned in the third Geneva Conventions

The only point you make that is even close to being correct is that when in doubt a determination should be made by a tribunal, a point which I also made. The wording in the Conventions, in fact, is as follows:

"Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal."

Note that the Conventions do not specify the the "competent tribunal" cannot be a military tribunal as you have stated. The federal court ruling you refer to is not the final word since The US Supreme Court has only just accepted the case for review.

Can you post an excerpt from the third Geneva Conventions ( or any other, for that matter ) that would support your contention that Geneva Conventions apply to combatants in general, and terrorists specifically?

02/16/2005 02:04:27 PM · #248

Originally posted by bdobe:

Originally posted by Olyuzi:
From DemocracyNow.org:
"ElBaradei: No New Evidence of Nukes In Iran
The head of the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency has cast new doubts on the Bush administration's claim that Iran is building nuclear weapons. Mohamed ElBaradei of the International Atomic Energy Agency said there have been no discoveries in the last six months to substantiate claims that Iran is secretly working toward building a nuclear bomb. ElBaradei also praised France, Britain and Germany for negotiating with Iran that have led to the suspension of its nuclear activities."

Sound familiar?

Yes, it definitely sounds familiar... too familiar. Mr. ElBaradei's comment seems eerily similar (to any reasonable person, that is) to various statements on the lack of WMD in Iraq before the war -- remember, Bush & Co. ignored and belittled the lack of WMD warnings as they went about selling their war of choice to us, the American public.

By Bush & Co. I presume you mean the former U.S. President, the former Defense Sectretary and the 77 U.S. Senators and 296 U.S. Representatives who voted to authorize the use of military force against Hussein?
In that regard, I see no similarity at all.
Perhaps you mean that there is a similarity in that there is general consensus among the congress and the U.N. member nations for this charge to the same degree that there was for the charge about WMD in Iraq?

02/16/2005 02:25:22 PM · #249

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

From Human Rights Watch
"The Geneva Conventions should apply to both Taliban and al-Qaeda detainees being held by U.S. forces at Guantanamo and in Afghanistan, even if ultimately the al-Qaeda fighters would likely not be accorded POW status, Human Rights Watch said. The Conventions provide explicit protections to all combatants captured in an international armed conflict, even if they are deemed to be unprivileged combatants not entitled to POW status."

From Article 2 of the Third Geneva Convention:
"Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof."

Also from Human Righs Watch
"The Geneva Conventions presume that a captured combatant is a prisoner of war, unless a competent tribunal determines otherwise on a case by case basis."

MY note: Have their been any tribunals to determine POW from non-POW?
I would hope you, as a military man, would strongly condemn the use of torture for any detainees or other prisoners the US takes,for what it could mean for our own armed service men and women who are captured in the line of duty. This does not seem to be a problem of just the enlisted man or woman, but goes to the highest offices of power in the US government, as reported by Seymour Hirsch of the New Yorker Magazine.

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Olyuzi:
The Geneva Conventions do apply to all combatants in an international armed conflict, even terrorists, and the fact that the US has taken military action in countries they believe to be associated with terrorists, rather than more traditional legal means, indicates that the Geneva Conventions apply to those POws. In cases where POW status is in doubt a competent tribunal needs to determine their status, not military tribunals, as has been found by a US court.

Technically, you are wrong on several points.
1) The Geneva Conventions do not apply to combatants at all
2) There are actually four Geneva Conventions, the first is related to treatment of battlefield casualties, the second is related to casualties at sea, the third ( the one we are talking about ) is related to Prisoners of War, and the fourth is ralated to civilians during wartime
3) the word 'terrorist' is never mentioned in the third Geneva Conventions

The only point you make that is even close to being correct is that when in doubt a determination should be made by a tribunal, a point which I also made. The wording in the Conventions, in fact, is as follows:

"Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal."

Note that the Conventions do not specify the the "competent tribunal" cannot be a military tribunal as you have stated. The federal court ruling you refer to is not the final word since The US Supreme Court has only just accepted the case for review.

Can you post an excerpt from the third Geneva Conventions ( or any other, for that matter ) that would support your contention that Geneva Conventions apply to combatants in general, and terrorists specifically?

First of all "Human Rights Watch" is not the officially designated interpreter of the Geneva Conventions. They are no more official than am I. They seem to acknowledge it even if you do not - as stated in their own website, "Human Rights Watch is an independent, nongovernmental organization, supported by contributions from private individuals and foundations worldwide." Therefore, just because they say it, does not make it so.

Secondly, in accordance with Article 2, when did the Iraq terrorists "accept and applie the provisions thereof"? I must have missed that bit of news.

Third, in answer to your question, I would, indeed, strongly condemn the use of torture for any detainees or other prisoners the US takes. But I would not use the word "torture" to describe MUCH of what occurred at Abu Ghraib. Some crossed the line, yes, and the guilty are being brought to trial for their breaches.

Fourth, not even Seymour Hersh says that there was DIRECT involvement "at the highest levels". What he says is that that the torture and sexual humiliation inflicted on Iraqi detainees were the result of policy decisions made at the highest levels of the American military and civilian command. There IS a difference, though it may be difficult for liberals to see.